1.1.4 Presentation

7/30/2019 1.1.4 Presentation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/114-presentation 1/21

“Values-engaged Evaluation”

Jennifer GREENE, Univers i ty o f I l l ino is at Urbana-Champaign



VALUES-ENGAGED EVALUATION Webinar Series on Equity-Focused Evaluation

Jennifer C. Greene

University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign



Welcome

• Importance of this conversation on equity in

evaluation

• Values-engaged evaluation

• Case examples

• Discussion



On valuing in evaluation

• Evaluation intrinsically involves judgments of quality

• Evaluation is thus inherently imbued with values

• But values are rarely named or claimed in

evaluation



On valuing in evaluation (con’t)

Evaluation that is … • Utilization-oriented

• Accountability-focused

• Impact

• Culturally responsive

• Democratic

• Critical

Values advanced … • Use

• Accountability

• Causal knowledge

about outcomes

• Context, respect for difference

• Social justice, equity,voice

• Structural critique



On valuing in evaluation (con’t)

Where do values show up in evaluation planning andpractice?

• Everywhere

• Most importantly:

− Purpose and audience, and intended use(s)

− Key evaluation questions

− Criteria for judging quality

− Communication and reporting (form and content)

− The social relational aspects of the evaluator’s role in context



Values-engaged evaluation• Values-engaged – describes the plurality of stakeholder

values

• Values-committed – prescribes engagement with

particular values inclusion and equity

• Inclusion of all legitimate stakeholder standpoints

• Equity of access, participation, and accomplishment for

all, especially those least well served in that context



Values-engagement in practice

• Evaluation purpose and audience− Enhanced contextualized understanding of promising practices,

especially for those underserved

− Primary audiences of local stakeholders, including intended

beneficiaries

• Intended uses

− Learning

− Program improvement (greater equity)



Practice (continued)

• Key evaluation questions− Appropriate questions on design quality,

implementation quality, and outcome

attainment (each inclusive of multiplestandpoints)

− Question on equity of program access,

experience, and accomplishment

In what ways and to what extent has the programserved to advance the interests and well being of those least well served in this context?




• Criteria for judging quality ~ 3 domains

− Quality of program design

− Contextual power of the program design

− Advancement of the interests of underrepresented andunderserved groups

Equity in program access, experiences, andaccomplishments




• Communication and reporting

• Evaluator role and relationships



Example 1: Hillside High Math

Program• Context: Regional high school serving multiple rural

areas

• Purpose: “This evaluation aims to investigate the

structure and content of the math pathways at Hillside

High, with a focus on equity of access to and learning

opportunities in mathematics across the whole diversity

of the student body, toward deeper program

understanding and improvement.”



Hillside High (con’t)

• Evaluation questions: “How and with what rationale are

math pathways at Hillside High structured? In what ways

does the structure support equitable opportunities to

learn across the diversity of the school’s student

population?”

• Criteria: “A good public high school math program

affords all students meaningful opportunities and

instruction needed to succeed.”



Hillside High (con’t)

• Communications and reporting



Lower level math classes

On the whole, students in

these classes weredisconnected, disengagedand/or disruptive. Theatmosphere of the classroomwas one of getting through theclass with as little trouble as

possible. Student disruptionswere continuous and constant,and as such, a considerableamount of class time wasspent on the teacher makingrepeated and persistent efforts

to ‘discipline’ acting-outstudents, telling them to “sit in[their] own seats, stop talking,focus and/or pay attention”…

Higher level/honors mathclasses

In general, the majority of the

students in these classes werewell behaved, attentive and

fully engaged, which in turn

brought about interactive and

collaborative-competitive class

atmosphere. Most studentswere highly attentive to the

day’s lesson... For the most

part, the teacher had no

problems eliciting students’

participation in the class, or getting them to stay on task

and complete the

assignments…



Example 2: WWW Access

• Context: A hypothetical technology education

program designed to enhance the individual and

collective “high-tech” capacity of rural residents and

their villages in selected Central American countries.The program is funded by the Gates Foundation.



WWW Access (con’t) • Purpose and audience: Assess service to those most in

needed, include diverse perspectives, toward deep

program understanding and equitable program

enhancements



WWW Access (con’t)

• Quality criteria considerations:

1. Quality of program design – basis in relevant theory and

research

2. Contextual power of program design – “showing up”meaningfully in peoples’ lives

3. Equity of access, experience, and accomplishment



For further information …

• Greene, J.C., Boyce, A., & Ahn, J. (2011). A values-

engaged, educative approach for evaluating educational

programs: A guidebook for practice. University of Illinois.

(available in the American Evaluation Association e-

library, http://www.eval.org)

• [email protected]

http://www.eval.org/

http://www.eval.org/



Discussion ….



THANK YOU!

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	cbjrnmg
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

1.1.4 Presentation

Documents